monkeyseemonkeydo Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Uh huh... Just what I was thinking, Ben. I'll just have to take your word for it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Deere Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Their terms are often synonyms for "god" but don't take the word too literally or you'll miss the point, which isn't a word and isn't dualisitic - it certainly doesn't mean the experience of a bearded chap sitting on a cloud. Instead it represents an experience, or higher reality, in the sense it's not distorted by ideas (dualism) whereby there are not things, just an ineffable connected experience.That's something that's been in my mind fora very long time. Lots of people refer to God in different lights. On the one hand religion dictates that God resides over all of us, and in science there is a constant search for a single higher reason of being (don't take that too literally, mind.) Taking the definitions out of the picture puts the two opposite spectrums right next to each other hand-in-hand looking for the same thing, what is essentially "the answer." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Uh huh... Just what I was thinking, Ben. I'll just have to take your word for it .Well, to be honest, I'm taking other peoples words on it, although I rationally understand its validity. Supposedly we can have experiences (non-conceptual experiences) that will make understand the point I'm getting at. The reason I meditate and practice all that other "hippy" stuff is just so I can attempt an understanding of our situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 puts the two opposite spectrums right next to each other hand-in-hand looking for the same thing, what is essentially "the answer."I think the place that science and religion collide is where the universe began.No-one can understand how something came from nothing, and that if there was stuff before the universe, where that came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_travis Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 (edited) Well, to be honest, I'm taking other peoples words on it, although I rationally understand its validity. Supposedly we can have experiences (non-conceptual experiences) that will make understand the point I'm getting at. The reason I meditate and practice all that other "hippy" stuff is just so I can attempt an understanding of our situation.Do you just right click words in Microsoft word and click 'synonyms' ben?Seriously though, your an intelligent fella, from what I have gathered on trials forum Edited August 5, 2008 by ben_travis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 That's something that's been in my mind fora very long time. Lots of people refer to God in different lights. On the one hand religion dictates that God resides over all of us, and in science there is a constant search for a single higher reason of being (don't take that too literally, mind.) Taking the definitions out of the picture puts the two opposite spectrums right next to each other hand-in-hand looking for the same thing, what is essentially "the answer."I would pretty much agree with that. I am a perennialist who believes that the true intention of religion (and probably all motivations regardless of how they manifest) is an aiming toward the same thing, essentially non-dual understanding (god if you will although it's a dangerous word to use because people are so reactionary). The idea of the Hindus is that we're delibrately playing this game whereby we confuse ourselves, throughout a cycle which will eventually lead us back to an understanding of the nature of things - they recommend giving the most respect to those individuals who have confused themselves the best; they are playing the game to its fullest! We are all the same existence, something which is impossible to grasp when you see existence in terms of individual, separated parts. As we are all the same, we are everything and we create all moments, all happenings, then really we are all god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Well, to be honest, I'm taking other peoples words on it, although I rationally understand its validity. Supposedly we can have experiences (non-conceptual experiences) that will make understand the point I'm getting at. The reason I meditate and practice all that other "hippy" stuff is just so I can attempt an understanding of our situation.God I've missed you Ben ::Davey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 I think the place that science and religion collide is where the universe began.No-one can understand how something came from nothing, and that if there was stuff before the universe, where that came from.It depends on what religion you are talking of. Science simply cannot say where thing came from, nor really can religion (the religions I am interested in, don't even try to say anything about it). I actually think it's nonsensical to talk of "something coming from nothing". There no experience that indicates such a thing can happen. Rather existence (and also by definition) always is, always has been and always will be. Again, questions such as these come from dualistic confusion, I think. If anyone is interested in dualism and the confusion it causes, check out the works of Alan Watts or Ken Wilber for a good introduction.Do you just right click words in Microsoft word and click 'synonyms' ben?Seriously though, your an intelligent fella, from what I have gathered on trials forumI spend a lot of time reading so if I do know a range of words that's the reason.And if you think I am intelligent, it just comes from the fact I usually spend several hours each day reading. I think anyone else would be able to put across the same ideas if they looked into the same things to the same extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme_biker0 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 If the subject and the object are connected and affect each other - nobody here, or anywhere, experiences anything like you do, becasue it is your observation that makes the event what it is.You cannot share anything you ever do - or ever have done - with anyone.Your world must be a lonely place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 (edited) If the subject and the object are connected and affect each other - nobody here, or anywhere, experiences anything like you do, becasue it is your observation that makes the event what it is.You cannot share anything you ever do - or ever have done - with anyone.Your world must be a lonely place.I don't entirely understand what you are getting at. Could you please elaborate.But in actual fact, with reference to your last statement, the reality of non-dual awareness, in making you realise the connectedness of all things has the opposite effect. You're not exactly lonely, when you realise that the people you thought were separate to you, are also you. In fact having the misconception of being separated from everything else is a far more lonely idea. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the perception that existentialism focuses on. All is existence, but this is realised only when we see no all because all is a dualistic way of experiencing. You really have to try and get some sense of the reality with which the words are trying to indicate. In Buddhism, they say that when the finger points to the moon, it is the moon we are supposed to see. Don't mistake the finger for the moon. Edited August 5, 2008 by rowly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 The earth isn't flat, I've seen pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendrix Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 The earth is square!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nick Riviera Posted August 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 The earth is square!! sort of boxx shaped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Is that his boxx?Is that your boxx? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonMack Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Still can't believe JT doesn't think the plane takes off. He's been proven wrong so many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Still can't believe JT doesn't think the plane takes off. He's been proven wrong so many times.He just needs to believe in Gordon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 For example, we don't know why we exist or (now the contraversy) how we came to be. Sure we can say we evolved from single cell organisms over billions of years, but in all truth this is just a probability of occurance. Albeit a very high probability based on our findings as humans.If you keep tossing a coin for an infinite amount of time, it's certain that adventually 10 in a row will land perfectly on their edge. Creationist videos use the impossible probabillity thing all the time, but over an infinite time period it's very possoble.Still can't believe JT doesn't think the plane takes off. He's been proven wrong so many times.I was joking btw.He just needs to believe in Gordon.I belive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonMack Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 (edited) No it doesn't. Youtube Video -> ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> Edited August 5, 2008 by Mark King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 (edited) I argued the point for two reasons, the first being it was an interesting situation to debate. It was obvious that the plane did take off yeah but if the belt moved fast enough, the plane wouldn't be going anywhere (friction in bearings and all that). Secondly the original question that was posted the first time round had a lot of 'loopholes' in it. However the question they used on myth busters didn't.So yeah the plane takes off, but it's fun to say it doesn't. EDIT: And that quote was my reaction to first reading question, where i was completely wrong. Edited August 5, 2008 by JT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonMack Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 So yeah the plane takes off, but it's fun to say it doesn't. Yeah I'm sure that was your reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 Yeah I'm sure that was your reason Apart from that post you quoted me on, anything else i said about the whole plane / belt situation I'd still defend. In some variations of the question it is debateable wether the plane would take off or not, i think even Tomm said it wouldn't. The key is to not take the debate personally and bring it back up months, even years down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 I belive!THAT'S PERCY YOU F*****G IDIOT...(I jest ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 I belive!THAT'S PERCY YOU F*****G IDIOT...(I don't jest) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 We can't all be Tommas the Tank Engine experts like yourself can we. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted August 5, 2008 Report Share Posted August 5, 2008 No, but even those with little experience know it's "Thomas" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.